Build for Python 3.10#1628
Conversation
|
I will be so happy once we can forget about conda :__ Would be lovely to have 3.11 as soon as possible. |
|
Bottlenecks include that I can't seem to be able to build apfel for osx anymore. No error message to be found: https://github.com/Zaharid/conda-recipes/actions/runs/3460416136/jobs/5780057654 |
|
Try first only 3.9, that one should work. |
|
AFAICT it does not (as per the link above). |
|
But it did 23 hours ago! https://github.com/NNPDF/nnpdf/actions/runs/3462322249/jobs/5781058161 That's why I would do step by step. First do just "3.9" to check that somehow the " didn't break everything. |
|
Note the link is for the apfel recipe repo trying to build apfel. NNPDF should work fine with existing packages. |
|
Ah, sorry, didn't realise. Ok, so there is no apfel for 3.10 / 11 ? |
|
No. That would need to be fixed by someone with a mac. |
|
Ok, I'm able to compile apfel with brew python 3.10 I'll try with conda as well, but I would need to prepare it (don't have conda installed yet). However, this is an M1 and I believe workflows are intel ? |
|
@scarlehoff since you are very clearly having a great time with similar problems, any chance you can look into this as well. I think the specific problem is that apfel is trying to get some metadata from pypi that does not exist. https://github.com/Zaharid/conda-recipes/actions/runs/3460416136/jobs/5780057654#step:6:1325 but I have no idea why. |
|
I'm just hoping we merge #1650 and #1651 soonish and this is not needed. In any case, in the M1 mac just doing Why? That's a good question. But I have another good question, do we need the python extension of apfel? We only need apfel because libNNPDF is built against it but it is now only used by |
We would need this until the next PDF paper is written, at minimum.
Good point. Will try disabling that. |
|
FWIW doing the obvious thing with Maybe @scarrazza could have a look? |
|
Here. This is what was needed rather than "discussion". @scarlehoff can you have a look at this now? |
|
Let's wait until #1537 is merged just in case. |
|
I'm confused about the two 3.8 that are left in "Required". I guess that's due to the change in the test and will disappear upon merging? I've modified the fitbot to run also under python 3.10, if that works ok I guess there is not much chance anything else will break (I've been using vp with 3.10 for a very long time now) |
|
@Zaharid are you fine with me merging master into this branch / rebasing this branch on top of master for the test to run? |
|
Yes, please. Anything that makes it work. |
This makes it hard to debug os-specific problems. Description at https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#jobsjob_idstrategyfail-fast
scarlehoff
added
run-fit-bot
|
Greetings from your nice fit 🤖 !
Check the report carefully, and please buy me a ☕ , or better, a GPU 😉! |
|
@Zaharid are you ok with me merging this? I think having a 3.10 package might be useful for me tomorrow actually. |
|
There might be a problem building the markdown docs (it may also be fixed, haven't tried). Not sure if we can live with that for now. Slightly regretting not finishing #1597. |
What kind of problem do you mean? |
|
AFAICT #1220 would still be an issue. |
|
Mm... a failure in building the docs would only mean the online docs will be one PR outdated, right? If so I'd merge. If the docs fail I'll do my best to fix it tomorrow so that people don't see an ugly X but I prefer to have the 3.10 package available for people coming with their own conda installation. |
|
Makes sense to me. Maybe we can resurrect #1596 although ideally we would remove md. Unfortunately pandoc leaves many things to be fixed manually. |
|
@Zaharid why did you remove the pin to docutils here? (thinking about adding it again just to get the green check... or skipping the docs for python 3.10, we only need them for one of the two after all...) |
|
I removed it because it didn’t work in 3.10. On 17 Feb 2023, at 09:52, Juan M. Cruz-Martinez ***@***.***> wrote:
@Zaharid why did you remove the pin to docutils here? (thinking about adding it again just to get the green check... or skipping the docs for python 3.10, we only need them for one of the two after all...)
—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
2 participants
No description provided.